Detailed suggestions for revision:
L20 Please, add their size in m2, or their dimensions as well as their total number.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the plot size in m2 (Page 1, Line 21).
L25 define what is high in terms of mm/h.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the definition of high-intensity in terms of mm/h (Page 2, Line 26).
L42 I would suggest you to use one and only one type of citing references in the text, i.e. Adimasu et al., 2014. If there are two authors, use Ramos & Martínez‐Casasnovas, 2009. For all the rest you preferably use the short version First Author et al., 20xx.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the references according to your suggestion (Page 2, Line 43). And examined the hole manuscript and corrected the references.
L55 Please, check the use of the word ”lost”. Why rainfall is lost? Why quoting here this 70%? It can be less and it can be more? Please, rephrase and make more relative this number.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised this sentence to “about 70% of rainfall is converted to runoff” to make it more accurate (Page 3, Line 58).
L64 there is a vast literature on this topic, only citing one paper it is not enough to gwet away on the topic of rainfall interception and rainfall losses in general (evapotranspiration, interception, stem flow, infiltration,….)
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added references to discuss rainfall interception and rainfall losses more comprehensively (Page 4, Line 77-78).
L77 please, rephrase - evapotranspiration is a process, and can be quantified (in mm), hydrology is field of science. Maybe soil wetness?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised “hydrology” to “soil wetness” in the latest version of the manuscript (Page 5, Line 90).
L97 There are many plots, but you have used only those close to Beijing - precisely, only nine of them. Is this so?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We collected data from 31 runoff plots in Beijing for analysis. However, in the analysis of vegetation factors, in order to better make other factors consistent, we selected 9 plots with different vegetation coverage but consistent with other factors for analysis. We revised this sentence to illustrated the number of plots (Page 6, Line 122-124).
L100 give their number. Nine?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised this sentence to “We collected 31 runoff plots” to illustrate the number of plots (Page 6, Line 122).
L101 Can you say something about the vegetation coverage types?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added the vegetation coverage types (Page 6, Line 126-127).
L121 during a year - seasonally, or were these differences all the time in place among the nine plots? You have later in your study used classes for vegetation coverage from 5% to 90%. How were these classes achieved/maintained?
Response: Thank you for your comments. Beijing’s rainy season is mainly in July and August. The vegetation coverage of runoff plots is controlled by planting density. Runoff plots are long-term monitoring stations for soil erosion and are maintained every year.
L149 Please, add somewhere the distribution of 997 rainfall events for each vegetation coverage class - or was the coverage different between nine plots and fixed in time, and so, all rainfall events were measured on all nine plots simultaneously?
Response: Thank you for your comments. All rainfall events were measured on all nine plots simultaneously. We added instructions in the manuscript (Page 6, Line 124-125).
L152-153 This is NOT true. Please rephrase: When vegetation coverage was higher than 60%, their effect on runoff and sediment reduction stays the same and does not change any more, even if it is as high as 90%.
Response: Thank you for your comments. When vegetation coverage was higher than 60%, runoff and sediment decrease with the increase of vegetation, but the difference was not significant. By that we mean a statistically insignificant difference. To avoid misunderstanding, we rewritten this sentence (Page 9, Line 192-193).
L172 Start a new paragraph, where you discuss low-intensity rainfall events.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We have described the low-intensity precipitation event in detail in Line 213-222.We added a new section to analyze high-intensity precipitation events (Page 11, Line 223-233).
L198-199 This comes here as a kind of surprise statement. Numerous soil erosion models, such as e.g. RUSLE, use rainfall erosivity as an important soil erosion factor, incorporating directly the highest rainfall intensity of 30-minutes into the equation. Further discussion is badly needed in this regard (maybe in the chapter Discussion).
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your Suggestions, we incorporated rainfall erodibility into the analysis, and found that rainfall erodibility was highly correlated with soil erosion and nutrient loss, and the rainfall erodibility was incorporated into the equation in the regression model. We added discussion in this regard (Page 12, Line 244-247).
L239-241 You are using plural, but cite only one study? Please, avoid such statements, or find other references that maybe are telling you something different. Please, rephrase, or make this statement more relative, i.e. account for specific study site conditions in this one reference.
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we revised the sentence (Page 16, Line 330-332).
L248 Another example of a clearly too strong statement to be taken so generally as it is written. Please, rephrase, or add more references in this regard and enlarge the discussion. As you have not studied interception and rainfall losses in canopies, please, be careful with such statements.
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to your suggestion, we rephrased this sentence (Page 16, Line 343-345).
L437 Should be rearranged to be in order alphabetically.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We rearranged the reference in order alphabetically (Page 23, Line 571-573).
L475 This reference is not used in the text. Please, use it in the text or delete in from the list.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We deleted this reference in the list (Page 23, Line 594-596)
Fig.1 Could you, please, adjust the DEM limit values for Low to start at ”0” and not ”-121”?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We revised the DEM limit value for Low to start at “0” in the Figure 1.
Fig.7 Would the SEM models be different if you split the rainfall events into high- and low-intensity events? Have you tried that?
Response: Thank you for your comments. We made a distinction between high-intensity rainfall events and low-intensity rainfall events for soil erosion (Fig. 5). Similarly, we tried to distinguish soil nutrient loss under high-intensity and low-intensity rainfall events. The results were similar to Figure 5, so we did not distinguish rainfall intensity here.
Fig.8 This Figure 8 is not used in the text - please, use it in the appropriate section of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you for your comments. Figure 8 was explained in the result section for 3.5 (Page 13, Line 269).
Table 1 Please, add a legend below the table to explain acronyms. RO, SL, P, N, COD,… You should use ASCM instead, as in the text, or at least add this explanation ASMC to the ”Moisture”. This is strange unit. Please, use mm instead, to have the same units as for rainfall.
Response: Thank you for your comments. We added a legend below the table 1 to explain acronyms and we revised “Moisture” to “ASMC” (Table 1).
Graphical abstract You were using the expression ”coverage” instead of cover. Why 20%? IS it not only 60% relevant?
Response: Thank you for your comments. According to the author guide, we modified the text for the part of the Graphic Abstract.